No fault? Not for a damaged driveway

David Lilac was checking the mailbox on July 5 when a smoking Chevrolet TrailBlazer slowed on Sacandaga Road and maneuvered into his driveway.

As flames appeared, Lilac helped the driver get his two daughters safely out of the SUV. By the time Lilac had retrieved a fire extinguisher, the vehicle was a mass of leaping flames and a job for firefighters.

After the blaze was out, Lilac and his wife, Kim Koza, were looking at a charred husk of a Chevy that had burned so hotly that it had to be scraped from their scorched driveway. Tree branches above were dry and brown.

Koza says the damaged driveway was a conversation piece five days later during her daughter’s high school graduation party at their Glenville home, but they weren’t overly concerned about it.

They were thankful no one was injured, and “we were sure the driver’s insurance company, Progressive, would repair our driveway,” Koza explained.

They were wrong.

In a letter responding to their claim, a Progressive representative wrote: “the facts of this incident indicate our insured was not liable for this loss. I have determined that the fire to our insured’s vehicle was accidental in nature and not the result of our insured’s negligence.”

Next, the couple looked into filing a claim under their homeowner’s policy, but they have held off because of potential elevation of their premiums and a $1,000 deductible they would have to pay.

Estimates for the driveway repairs are close to $4,000 because of the deep damage and pavers’ concerns about ice-and-water damage if a seam is placed between the old and new sections.

A sooty layer still coats the driveway, despite several summer rainstorms. Pieces of the Chevy are cooked into the asphalt, and blackened bits of glass, metal and plastic occasionally come loose.

Progressive did offer later to settle with Koza and Lilac with a $999.99 payment, which a company spokeswoman noted would virtually cover their $1,000 deductible. But the couple still would have to file a claim with their own carrier, so they declined.

They have filed a complaint with the New York State Insurance Department regarding Progressive’s determination and, reluctantly, are preparing to sue the driver, Kenneth R. Briggs III of Berne, in Small Claims Court in an effort to force Progressive to pay.

It surprised me, too, and I turned to experts at the state Insurance Department for insight. My first question was why New York’s “no-fault” insurance laws didn’t ensure that Progressive would pay.

The answer — probably obvious to anyone who works around the insurance industry, but not to me — is that no-fault provisions do not apply to property damage.

“No-fault really is only for medical expenses,” said John Capuano, associate insurance examiner in the Insurance Department’s Consumer Services Bureau.

As Capuano explains it, a question of whether an auto insurer should cover damage to a third party’s property typically turns on whether the driver showed negligence — or what some might call “fault” or “responsibility” — that led to the damage.

In this case, Progressive contends that the driver did nothing wrong or unusual, sort of a like a neighbor whose tree falls on your garage.

“We realize this situation puts them in a difficult position,” which is why Progressive offered the $999.99 payment to cover the deductible on their homeowner’s policy, company spokeswoman Leah Knapp said.

“Mr. Briggs (the driver) was on a hill on a relatively rural road when his vehicle caught fire. Realizing this was an emergency, he had no choice but to back into Mr. Lilac and Ms. Koza’s driveway to ensure his and his family’s safety. We believe that most people would have done the same thing under the circumstances” Knapp said.

“In addition,” she said, “Mr. Briggs’ maintenance records over the past 16 months showed that he kept his vehicle very well maintained and could not have anticipated it would catch fire.”

I agree the driver acted reasonably under the circumstances, but he did make a decision to roll his burning car into that driveway, so I’d say the company that insures his car should cover the damage.

Capuano said the Insurance Department is looking at these issues as it considers Lilac and Koza’s complaint.

16 Responses

No fault covers medical expenses. Liability coverage covers situations like this. Progressive’s decision appears to be improper. Their insured is responsible for the maintenance of their vehicle. It was the failure of Mr. Briggs to properly maintain his vehicle that led to it burning–cars do not spontaneously combust. There was obviously a mechanical failure which led to the car starting on fire.
The Lilac’s have a strong case and should be properly reimbursed. Be prepared–Progressive will assign counsel to defend their insured. I see Progressive agreeing to make payment.
Interesting is the fact that they offered to settled for such a non-sensical amount. Either they are denying or they owe the claim. They should make up their mind, reverse their decision, and pay what they owe.

What about the property damage portion of the policy? I don’t understand why this wouldn’t cover it. Does the policy specifically say vehicle property because I know mine doesn’t. My agent explained to me when buying the insurance if I hit a telephone pole, property damage would cover it and that is why she recommended a good amount of property damage coverage (or in case you hit a house). If not, one would think any property damage would be covered up to the insured amount.

you would think that after the nice deed these people did someone would volunteer and fix the driveway, progressive thank god i didn’t switch over to your company now that i see the short oh well comment by your agency i will stay with state farm thank you very much..to the kosa’s no good deed shall go unnoticed and something good will hopefully resolve from this..

OK. First of all…I work in the auto insurance industry and it is claims like these that give all insurance companies a bad name. Mr. Briggs’ had an emergency situation. This caused him to make a quick and sudden decision. The determination of whether or not Mr. Briggs was negligent can be based on what is believed to be reasonable and prudent.

If my vehicle were smoking and/or on fire and I had my two children in the vehicle, the first thing I would do is stop the vehicle, get out and remove my children. I think this is reasonable. I do not think that stopping the vehicle, putting it into reverse and backing up on a main roadway into a private driveway is reasonable. I understand that Mr. Briggs’ was not intending on causing any damage, however, his decision had consequences. He chose to stop, reverse and park a burning vehicle on a private driveway, instead of just stopping on the roadway.

Since Mr. Briggs was checking his mail at the time and was at the scene, he also had choices and decisions to make. Mr. Lilac could have demanded that Mr. Briggs remove his burning vehicle from Mr. Lilac’s property and not assisted with helping the children. Mr. Lilac did not have an obligation to assist, but chose to risk his life and assist.

Furthermore, the fact that pieces and parts of Mr. Briggs vehicle are embedded into the driveway of Mr. Lilac is a hazard. Progressive should be covering the damage to the driveway. In any accident, whether it is caused between two vehicles or an object, if there is glass and/or debris at the scene, the auto insurance company will pay to have the debris removed. Typically this is done by the tow company, depending on the type of debris and whether or not it is hazardous. Since this debris is embedded into the driveway, the only way to remove all of the debris is to cut it out. This would then leave patches and holes in the driveway. Progressive would owe to have those patches and holes repaired back to its pre-loss condition.

The fact remains that Mr. Briggs chose to back his vehicle into a private driveway. He had the option to keep the vehicle on the road. This choice, in my opinion, is a negligent act because Mr. Briggs was putting the lives and property of others at risk. It is an unfortunate situation, yes, but given all of the circumstances, coverage should be afforded to the innocent homeowners.

Mr. Briggs is ultimately responsible. Turning onto someone’s property with a burning car was totally irresponsible and he should make good on the damage he caused.

Briggs left a burning wreck on someone else’s property. I appreciate that Lilac and Koza want to stay away from the legal system, who doesn’t? But Briggs should be compelled to pay up. Then let Briggs sue his insurance company, it shouldn’t be Lilac’s/Koza’s responsibility.

@4 – I am also in the insurance industry and totally agree with you. Mr. Briggs made the decision to back into Mr. Lilac’s driveway therefore causing damage his property. If anything, Progressive should pay for the driveway to be repaired under the Property Damage portion of the policy.

This is a classic case of what is ‘right’ and what is ‘legal’ are 2 very different things. Progressive is hiding behind what is ‘legal’ and ignoring what is ‘right’. Progressive’s goal is to do as little as possible and remain within the boundaries of what is detailed in the policy that they issues. They are a big company and probably do not really care about some very bad publicity in our small area.

This situation sounds like res ipsa loquitur–the legal idea that some things just don’t happen without negligence, and that if the item causing the harm is under the exclusive control of someone they are basically deemed negligent.

Cars do not combust without either poor maintenance or other negligence. While there may no overtly negligent act of the owner/driver, the fact is Progressive is on the hook IMHO.

Damage caused by vehicles at other times is being covered. It should be covered this time. If your vehicle hits a guardrail, a telephone pole, a structure, a highway appurtenance of almost any description, or if you cause damage to the pavement, overhead wires, trees, or bridge supports by driving your vehicle into them you are responsible for the damage. Most agencies will bill you and/or your insurance company for costs of repair or replacement. Some are even beginning to bill for the costs of the emergency worker services.

I have a friend in the autobody repair business. He says that Progressive is the absolute worst company to deal with.

These people chouldn’t have to chase anyone or any company to get the driveway repaired and the tree cut down and replaced. The owner of the burned vehicle should pay for all damages and his insurance company should repay him what they owe.

I am left wondering about that burned tree in the photos. If part of it should collapse, say, into the roadway, and crush a person or another car, who is responsible?

A few comments made about the wisdom of pulling into a private drive, I’m familiar with Sacandaga Road. While I don’t know the location where this happened, there are a number of blind hills where you can’t see what’s on the other side, there are no shoulders in parts, there are deep ditches in other parts. Many, if not most, drive well over the limit. If this was the situation, getting a disabled vehicle off of the road would have been a matter of preventing a headache from becoming a real tragedy. Progressive should be grateful, it could have been much worse for them.

Congratulations to Jerry for speaking the truth. The New York State Insurance department is worthless, as he stated, and provide no real protection for the consumer. It was the biggest waste of time I ever spent in my continued battle with the criminals at State Farm. And these companies are protected by our State Government…I know, because I complained all the way to the top. Health care will never be accessed through for-profit insurance companies. You cannot use a State Farm no-fault policy after a certain amount of PIP usage, it is unusable without an attorney, and attorney’s cannot make money doing this type of work, so there is NO recourse to utilize your benefits. It is hopeless. New York State should put these criminals behind bars. For the lady who decided to “stay with State Farm”, she should be warned. Oh, and by the way, of course Progressive is liable for this property damage, it is obvious.

I plowed through a field and hit the broadside of a barn! Property damage insurance covers that barn. Property damage claims typically are worded by insurance carriers to exclude payment coverage for “acts of god”.